Evil Genius

to the idea of the migratory cities. In Caesar's commentary on the Gallic wars, he wrote that the Germanic tribes kept in a perpetual state
of war-readiness by assigning each clan a different tract of farmland each year, and each farmer was alloted a different strip. This kept individual
soldiers from forming a close-knit feeling for either neighbors or real estate.

How about getting rid of the sales tax, and taxing property at rate based on how long one owner has it? Just an idea. . .

In my spare time I've been reading up on the history of dueling. The primary consideration before c. 1870 was not skill, but honor. Honor meant
sparing an opponent if possible, and giving them a chance to back down. At all costs, to be fearless, and to be a gentleman, even when furious or
exacting retribution.

The goal of a duel was not victory, but to demonstrate that one was willing to risk life and limb for the sake of one's reputation for integrity.
Swords and pistols were so dangerous that even a skilled master could be felled by a lucky opponent. Pistols especially contributed to the decline of
dueling. Saber duels were only rarely fought to the death, and the refusal of quarter was far more damaging to one's good name than losing.

I wouldn't take this argument too far, but before about 1800, wars were somewhat less about economics and attrition than about personal conduct.
Particularly during the High Middle Ages, it is odd how many seiges ended with a banquet before the surrender, and the beseigers invited into the
castle and the discussion of terms was had over dinner.

Many readers of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" will remember the seige of the Cathar castle in Languedoc (the name escapes me). The Cathars were offered
the chance to leave unmolested, even the adult males, and take their weapons with them, only leaving their treasure. They refused and were
massacred.

Or think of the Christmas Truce of WWI, when Brits and Germans crawled out of their trenches and played soccer and sang "Silent Night," even trading
mailing addresses for after the war. Such an attitude is unthinkable in the modern age when honor means nothing, economics is the world religion, and
the dollar is GOD.

Imagine a class of men and women who despised riches, but held their honor and good conduct as their most precious treasure. If you made an enemy of
someone like that, you couldn't buy them off or bully them with threats of legal action. People like that might end up running the society.

Incedentally, there is a group of German Fraternities that still practice a form of duel with razor-sharp blades and quilted padding, called
"Mensur"

Here are a list of sites, all of 'em auf Deustch, but you can breeze through and look at the pictures to get the drift.

They are pretty low-key about the whole thing, and don't show any live shots. I gather it is a pretty controversial thing in German-speaking
nations, seen as a barbaric holdover from a jingoistic past.

Anyway, interesting the way our pastimes influence our values, and vice-versa. What would it look like if a celebrity challenged paparazzi to a duel,
instead of suing them? ? ??

(That's what Frau Dr. calls the History channel: "It's always World War II, somewhere)

It's not enough to have an epithet after you're gone, like "The terrible," or "the Magnificent" or "the Great."

Your people need something to call you during your reign, while they bow under the weight of your edicts.

Mussolini = Il Duce

Hitler = Fuehrer

Duvalier = "Poppa Doc"

Franco = "Generalissimo"

Tsar Nicholas II = "Little Father"

Kim Jong Il = "Dear Leader"

I was thinking a two word title; the first word being an adjective like "beloved" or "transcendant," "serene," or "blissfull;" with the
second word being a noun that would have an in-group meaning of being a new kind of leader. For example "Fuehren" just means to lead in German,
like "lead" does in English. But the word took on a whole new meaning during the Nazi period. It has basically dissappeared as a verb since
1945.

So I need a title like leader, monarch, example, pioneer, or pontiff. Something that names my superman status. I personally don't care for
"general."

I think the most important thing about taking over the world as an evil genious , is not to convince the dissenters of how good you are, but to kill
the dissenters off... hence my plan is to only allow those who i deem worthy to survive in my colony... sounds evil but hey.. the biggest problem
facing the planet and ultimately our race, is our race... reduce the numbers by 99% and the world will have time to heal

The trick is, getting rid of the right ones. SA, you don't have to get rid of all of them, just the visible ones, this will have a chilling effect
on the populace, and "fear them up."

There is a story of a Greek tyrant, I think it was Pisastratus, who was asked how he kept control of the populace so brutally, without being
overthrown. Without saying a word, he led the interrogator out to a field of wheat, and walked through the grain, using his sword as a scythe.
However, the Tyrant didn't harvest all the grain, but only cut the heads that stuck up above the rest of the crop. This was how he stayed in
power.

The Japanese Prisoner-of-War camps were controlled by setting up parallel camps. The Japanese military found that 5% of the prisoners were
responsible for almost all uprisings and escape attempts. They found that 95% of the prisoners could be held with minimal supervision. The
"leadership 5%" needed at least double guard-per-capita ratio, to keep them imprisoned. The guards noted that the ratio was the same among officers
as it was among enlisted men. 1 person in 20 is a natural leader . . .

They would build a large, "easy" prison for the bulk of pows, and build a smaller, stricter facility for the dangerous 5%.

So how do you identify that 5%? Maybe like Orwell's 1984, with a faux resistance movement, that vacuums up all sedition? There is a claim that the
FBI did this in the USA during the anti-war rallies of the Vietnam Era; their agent-provocateurs radicalized the movement, so they could be arrested
and imprisoned without forcing any change in society.

But, in a population of 6 billion, it would be too hard to pick out all the leaders and leave the sheep behind... my system allows me to pick those
who i know for a fact will obey, or, if not obey, help me to constructively improve my society. Then i kill the rest of the populace and i have a
smaller amount of people to watch over...

Like i said, its a little evil and all, but i feel it is the only way it could be done.

How would you filter a population of 56 billion people to find those who would obey... then there is always a margin of error, and the larger the
population the more errors 'leaders' likely to slip through the net

Well, it's all about the depopulation. moving folks around by force is bound to stir up trouble, so you whack a whole lot of them. Instant
decimation.

But why kill everyone when you can point them at each other? Hold yourself above everyone. Cause most of them to revere you as god-emperor. establish
a fairly arbitrary (or not so arbitrary caste system), and let heavily ritualized fighting take over. House against house, clan against clan. Trials
of grievance, oh my!

Or, one could simply form some sort of ogliarchy filled with internal strife and manuvering. Dune is an excellent example, with the Landsraad all
fighting against each other with the Padishah/God-Emperor playing all ends against the middle.

I think DeusEx has the right idea. If you are the source of all woe, then people start to agree that you have to go.

The peasant class in Russia practically worshipped the Tsar, calling him "Little Father," and believed that he protected them from the predations of
boyars and capitalists. The Revolution was on hold for 75 years until the boyars came to be identified with the tsar.

The Roman Caesars followed a similar policy, Julius' dictum "divide and conquer."

Darius did the same thing for the Persian Empire.

So, SpecialAsianx, if you can pit castes or clans or whatever against each other, then you can be seen as protector of all.

Rather than killings which bring up war-crime trials later on, how about a deportation scheme? Something like this:

Individuals whose crimes are political in nature are sent to a city in a totally different climate. They are free to live and work there, but are
forbidden to leave. Picture a "New York" enclave in Cairo; a "German Quarter" in New Delhi, A Kwazulu section of Dublin. The "Rive Gauche" of
Tashkent. A "London Street" in Ulaan Bataar.

Oh yeah, you also want to blame whole groups for the misdeeds of an individual. That's probably the hallmark of imperial power. If someone tries to
assassinate you, burn their whole town to the ground and deport the inhabitants to work in the Borax mines of Death Valley. That is what the
Babylonians did to the tribes of ancient Judea. When the Jewish exiles finally returned home several generations later, they found their land filled
with foreigners who didn't know anything of their cultures & customs.

You also can stir the pot by "rewarding" an ethnic group by giving them special rights and plunking them down in the middle of another group. The
infighting will carry on for centuries. This is exactly how the Turks created the Balkan problem back in the 13th-16th centuries.

For instance, as a texan, I can tell you that this would be a great recipe for subjugating my home state: Pass a law that every person with a New
Jersey Drivers' License can take possession of one house and one auto in Texas, and that the only property titles now recognized are ones held by New
Jersey residents. The result would be a bloodbath, as hordes of New Jerseyians flood into Texas, seizing assets at gunpoint, while Texans respond
with reciprocating force.

The Txans wouldn't have time to focus on you, since they'd be busy defending themselves. Plus, after a month, you could give out "honorary New
Jersey Drivers' Licenses" to Texans who swore fealty to you. Pass a new law that the property originally owned by a texan reverts to texas if the
NJ usurper dies for any reason. There'd be a serious depopulation of both states, without you lifting a finger.

Always an excellent idea to divide, oppress and reward based on nothing more than inherent superficialites of difference.

That's why I've long held firm that Scorpios are evil and must be punished.

I would enforce Zodiac branding at birth to let people know the kind of psyche you're dealing with in any given situation.

I'm still working on the nuances of Federal Regulations regarding which signs are allowed to marry, breed, conduct business, defend, judge, hold
governing position and interact with which other Astrological signs, but overall that the Scorpios be damned is a given.

To minimize their existence I'd outlaw copulation during the culling season of Spring where Scorpio souls of Ancient evil steal the newly
fertilized eggs of unwitting normal Zodiac peoples. My people.

Furthermore, the census (which has long supported my claims of Astrogenic superiority of the 11 pure signs of the Zodiac) needs alot more
personal and psychological profiling for me to do data sorts by birthday to assign mates and jobs and in some cases imprison the insane by
birth.

I've got my eye on Leos too. But for the most part, the normal people approve of their Cancer King and share his infallible statistical
analysis of Scorpio inferiority. Except of course for the Scorpio lovers. Weak willed mental defects that they are.

There's a place for everyone in the Supreme Analysts behavioral modeling program. Where do you fit in?

To be located in the imperial capitol, "Doxopolis," on the central thoroughfare, "Triumph of the Imperium Boulevard"

We'll set up an annual scholarship fund, fully funding the college degree of the 20 best essayists on the topic "How Astrology Can Expose Traitors
to the Nobility." Research grants for graduate research will be funded as soon as 100 B.A.'s in Astrology have been distributed. We'll also need
a Criminal justice department with branches for Remote Viewing, Dowsing, and sympathetic evidence.

Oh yes, any city with a population over 10,000 will need to have one certified astrologer on staff for every 25,000 in population.

And let's set up a prophecy competition, with the best prophet winning a hundred grand, but the worst offender must live as a hermit in the elephant
preserve of Kentucky for a year. There will be a parallel competition for weathermen.

I'm also considering different kinds of mandatory headgear for different occupations. Astrologers will need to dress with tall pointed blue hats
covered with stars and planets, etc.

I wouldn't let Aries drive. Always ramming into things. Anyone born under that sign shouldn't be able to drive when the sun is in the astrological
sign.

You may be unaware, but traditional astrology is actually 3000 years out of date. The heavens have moved (precession of equinoxes) since ancient
times, and the dates for Scorpio, for example are in November, whereas the Sun is actually in that sign in October.

So I'd make some laws based on Astrological signs, and others based on Astronomical signs and alignments. This would be so confusing that only
professional astrologers could sort it out.

Lawyers will be outlawed (and their children deported to Idaho), and from now on all cases must be brought by a member of the Imperial Conference of
Astrologers. All laws must be written by them, too.

And real estate and cars can only be bought or sold on propitious dates for the parties concerned.

Along with your tax return, you'd need to file a personality inventory and astrological return as well.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
You may be unaware, but traditional astrology is actually 3000 years out of date. The heavens have moved (precession of equinoxes) since ancient
times, and the dates for Scorpio, for example are in November, whereas the Sun is actually in that sign in October.

So I'd make some laws based on Astrological signs, and others based on Astronomical signs and alignments. This would be so confusing that only
professional astrologers could sort it out.

While you're at it, make a law that no one may refuse to mate with someone of the corresponding astrological chart, unless already married. This
could be a great way for unnattractive/geeky people to manage incredible mating opportunities.

"Claudia Schiffer! I claim you by right of the fact that you are a venus ascendant in your 5th house, and it would cancel out my Neptune in
retrograde trine moon and Jupiter. You a required to meld with me!"

(oops, she's married to that magician . . .)

"Liv Tyler, I claim the right to spawn, based on your venus ascendant . . ."

But what of the ugly and stupid, the rednecks who would use that to claim the intelligence or rich and dull the gene pool? It would be economic chaos!
Speaking of economics, the system msut be torn down. Eliminate all debts, obliterate all banks and shift the balanced sums to the Most Imperial High
Bank.

Encourage people to have all the sex they want. But no babies for you unless you prove that you're an asset, and that your genes should be passed on.
deeds, intelligence, dueling, acts of particular heroism or sycophancy...

See, you're providing a list of traits that YOU assume are beneficial for the gene pool.

What if physical beauty is actually a detriment. Suppose that beautiful people have an easier time getting jobs, mates, and getting their way in life
generally. (Studies support this.) But is that necesarrily a good thing? Innovation comes from people being driven, i.e. NOT getting their way. So
perhaps beautiful people don't really accomplish as much for our society as it may appear.

The same goes for wealth. I derive part of my income from speculating in the securities market. I think it's an excellent level playing field. I
have personally witnessed one of the richest firms in the world lose almost $250 million dollars in one day, because they THOUGHT they knew what they
were doing. The fact is, most of the government regulatory agencies exist to "reign in" the free market. A significant minority of rich people did
not earn their own wealth, and so they try to make the game about already being rich.

Now, think with me about folks who've acheived a great deal:

Temuchin. A fatherless runt who's enemies wiped out his family except for his mother. The two of them survived in a desert valley by eating rats
for a year. His hunger for revenge led him to take over his clan, then his tribe, then the neighbors, and finally to change his name to Genghis
Khan.

George Soros. A penniless jewish boy in Nazi occupied Austria, narrowly survived being sent to the camps. Arrived in America penniless. One of the
richest people on earth now.

Bill Gates. You know his story. Serioiusly, if that guy could have gotten dates back in high school, a personal calculator would still come with a
30 ft. cord.

Andrew Carnegie. Penniless immigrant from Scotland. Transformed Capital in the West, and introduced the modern financial age.

My point is this. None of these people had any social or financial standing, and yet they propelled our civilization in new directions. What traits
do they share, besides desperation? Certainly nothing you can breed for. And that is precisely my point. you and I have no real way of knowing what
will best help our species (or empire).

Hitler was a total idiot: what do hair and eye color have to do with being the master race? It's just idiotic.

Sure, intelligence may be largely genetic. But even IQ scores are horrible oversimplifications of the diversity of the human intellect. It would be
easier to devise a 3 digit number system to rate all motor vehicles. But no one ever does so. Why? because different cars are good for different
things. And that is even more true with organisms as complicated as humans.

Just when you've decided that some little inbred village in Appallachia has no justifiable reason to exist, it turns out that they have a gene that
prevents cancer or aids or something.

Human variation is the engine of evolution. Maybe we as the ruling elite ought to be breeding for as much variation as possible, and let nature and
chance sort 'em out.

Nature and variation have their place, indeed. Everyone knows that. I'm not advocating anything but a genetic elite who have status and excellent
breeding. The Battletech concepts appear sound- let people compete in order to obtain a place among the genetic elite. Warriors are the easiest
example- they prove their genetic worthiness from their brood. Desperation may breed genius, but so does ambition. Take Bill Gate's example. He
wanted to make somethign of himself, and pressure was applied. Let's say you take Gate's sperm, and create a brood of twenty children. Now, all of
them have the knowlege that they msut compete against not only each other, but other sibkos and freebirths trying to enter the breeding program. In
addition, they are burdened with the responsibility of continuing their lien within the program. Of those children, half will inevitably break or wash
out. Of the rest, they are driven to compete, and become the best of the best. And why stop at warriors? The Herbert family can write. You can tell
it's in their blood. So why not try to breed writers, as well? Create a sibko of Atwood/Herberts.

I will admit I went too far...let people breed. But reward those who go farther and better than the rest. Internal competition will keep the populace
weak. By creating a family-centric society and applying our sociological reforms, how can we lose?

Originally posted by DeusEx
Take Bill Gate's example. He wanted to make somethign of himself, and pressure was applied. Let's say you take Gate's sperm, and create a brood of
twenty children...

And create the worst reality show ever.

I totally see where you're coming from DE

, but somehow I think elite breeding just makes more
Paris Hiltons.

I'd ban the rich from procreating before that happens.

To DS's point about increased variation in the gene pool, I have a serious question. Does forced intermixing and homoginization promote a diverse
gene pool or a limited one... same for pros and cons of forced segregation?

I have no thoughts on this, just more questions.

I suppose I could see some hyperbred EurAfroIndoAsian super race of all dominant traits having excellent advantages overall, but also shortcomings in
the face of newly introduced bio-hazards and super mutations.

Cloning "perfection" (both figuratively and literally) just seems like a really bad idea to replace procreation.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.